“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

People that raise outlandish conspiracies discredit themselves. As time has gone on it seems the more outlandish the claim the more publicity that person gets on the so called alternative media.

yea alot of conspiracy's are complete BS. im not gonna say that every conspiracy theory is true, far from it, but some deserve more investigation.

“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

People that raise outlandish conspiracies discredit themselves. As time has gone on it seems the more outlandish the claim the more publicity that person gets on the so called alternative media.

I think what this shows, is just how really splintered the GOP is. Not in the sense that they will have serous trouble uniting against the Democrats, but rather in the sense that they have made themselves into a collection of narrow special interests, who really don't like each other or care about each others' concerns.

I agree it is sprinted. It seems to me that with so many it is self defeating to the party itself

Almost as if there is a " divide & conquer " mentality... somewhere (?)

Dont the media and the progressive intellectuals lecture us that diversity is a good thing?....

During the curfew all street level drug dealing got pushed indoors. Once the curfew was lifted, dealers found out someone else was trying to take their corner and so you have a lot of shootings to re-establish territory.

You also likely have some 'payback' for arsons/looting done as a perceived 'diss' or disrespectful move between gangs. While publicly the gangs claimed to have invoked a peace treaty, it's not something gangs are normally proactive about entering into. They usually happen only after a high profile shooting or gang melee.

Finally, there has been a publicly acknowledged work slowdown by cops. They are not stopping & frisking, talking to old ladies who know what's happening at 2:00 am on the block, and only answering 911 calls. So, the thugs have a hall pass for now to shoot and loot.

Personally, I say you evacuate the women and children and drone strike the known gang buildings/businesses.

or replace the police with unemployed who are interested in doing their jobs..

oh boo hoo, we cant shoot and killed unarmed people anymore so we just wont do anything,,,,,just as pathetic as wanting 15 dollars an hour to flip a burger,,,,

Since when are the unemployed interested in jobs? How long would that last? I mean, it's an actual JOB.....

um,.. since it takes MONEY to eat and live,, unemployed have been interested in jobs,,,,

what kind of question is that?

My question IS....Why aren't they working if they are so interested in jobs? Why are they living off of handouts from the government? Why? Explain that...because it IS a problem.

because 'working' isnt like going out and pulling a leaf off of the tree
it is a PROCESS to become employed,,and until the time of such employment,, one is considered

unemployed

since there are hundreds of apps to any given job, that leaves HUNDREDS that have to continue looking ,, ie being 'unemployed' until an EMPLOYER finds them a BEST fit for the opening

There are also disqualifiers. Felony convictions... Drug use.. lack of basic reading and math skills..

Let us not pretend that the reason people can't get jobs is because there are 100 applications for every one.

I just looked at Indeed and there are 34,700 jobs within 25 miles of Baltimore listed.. I would think that anyone who really really wanted to work could find something if they met the basic hiring standards..

also, if they don't have any ID, they won't be able to get a job either...they can vote, but not get a job...

I guess they haven't given jobs the special status of being considered a 'right'..... it isn't as important as other things like gay marriage and free healthcare..

any statistics on how many unemployed have records, Or are we just throwing out tangents to further villify and blame the jobless,,?

try as one may to keep disparaging people for daring to not 'have a job',,,, it doesn't change the fact that people have to be the BEST candidate,, and whether they aren't because someone else applying has more impressive credentials or because they have a record,, doesn't change the fact that 'having a job' isn't something that is solely under the control of those seeking work,,

its a decision for employers and they dont hire everyone who applies,,,,

Men with criminal records account for about 34 percent of all nonworking men ages 25 to 54, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation.

Read the entire article and then come back and tell me that I am throwing out a tangent to vilify people.

You may not like it, but it's a fact.

that leaves 66 percent (of the men in a certain age range, not even of all unemployed),, and still doesnt have anything to do with whether people who are unemployed 'want' jobs which was the original argument posed simply because I suggested they should look to unemployed people to fill the jobs of cops who dont want to do their own

I never said that every single unemployed person had a criminal record.

A fifth member of the Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Office on Criminal Justice is leaving the agency, city officials confirmed.

Amy Hartman, who led city efforts to increase public safety in the southeast neighborhood of McElderry Park, has submitted her resignation — meaning nearly one-third of the 16-member office is departing amid the recent surge in violence.

LeVar Michael, who led the city's anti-violence program Operation Ceasefire, resigned in March over concerns the city wasn't implementing the program properly. Last month, Angela Johnese, director of the criminal justice office, and Heather Brantner, the mayor's Sexual Assault Response Team coordinator, left their posts. Officials declined to say under what terms they departed. And, Shannon Cosgrove, deputy director of the office, submitted her resignation days later.

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts has said police are struggling to stop violence in West Baltimore, where officers have been routinely surrounded by dozens of people, video cameras and hostility while performing basic police work since the death of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old who died after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody. Six officers are charged criminally in Gray's death. Some police officers have said they feel hesitant on the job under intense public scrutiny.

Arrests dropped by more than half in May compared to the same time last year.

Shortly after Gray's funeral, rioting broke out across the city. Twenty-seven pharmacies and two methadone clinics were looted, and the amount of stolen pills has "thrown off the balance on the streets of Baltimore," leading to a spike in shootings related to the drug trade, according to Batts.

During the curfew all street level drug dealing got pushed indoors. Once the curfew was lifted, dealers found out someone else was trying to take their corner and so you have a lot of shootings to re-establish territory.

You also likely have some 'payback' for arsons/looting done as a perceived 'diss' or disrespectful move between gangs. While publicly the gangs claimed to have invoked a peace treaty, it's not something gangs are normally proactive about entering into. They usually happen only after a high profile shooting or gang melee.

Finally, there has been a publicly acknowledged work slowdown by cops. They are not stopping & frisking, talking to old ladies who know what's happening at 2:00 am on the block, and only answering 911 calls. So, the thugs have a hall pass for now to shoot and loot.

Personally, I say you evacuate the women and children and drone strike the known gang buildings/businesses.

or replace the police with unemployed who are interested in doing their jobs..

oh boo hoo, we cant shoot and killed unarmed people anymore so we just wont do anything,,,,,just as pathetic as wanting 15 dollars an hour to flip a burger,,,,

Since when are the unemployed interested in jobs? How long would that last? I mean, it's an actual JOB.....

um,.. since it takes MONEY to eat and live,, unemployed have been interested in jobs,,,,

what kind of question is that?

My question IS....Why aren't they working if they are so interested in jobs? Why are they living off of handouts from the government? Why? Explain that...because it IS a problem.

because 'working' isnt like going out and pulling a leaf off of the tree
it is a PROCESS to become employed,,and until the time of such employment,, one is considered

unemployed

since there are hundreds of apps to any given job, that leaves HUNDREDS that have to continue looking ,, ie being 'unemployed' until an EMPLOYER finds them a BEST fit for the opening

There are also disqualifiers. Felony convictions... Drug use.. lack of basic reading and math skills..

Let us not pretend that the reason people can't get jobs is because there are 100 applications for every one.

I just looked at Indeed and there are 34,700 jobs within 25 miles of Baltimore listed.. I would think that anyone who really really wanted to work could find something if they met the basic hiring standards..

also, if they don't have any ID, they won't be able to get a job either...they can vote, but not get a job...

I guess they haven't given jobs the special status of being considered a 'right'..... it isn't as important as other things like gay marriage and free healthcare..

any statistics on how many unemployed have records, Or are we just throwing out tangents to further villify and blame the jobless,,?

try as one may to keep disparaging people for daring to not 'have a job',,,, it doesn't change the fact that people have to be the BEST candidate,, and whether they aren't because someone else applying has more impressive credentials or because they have a record,, doesn't change the fact that 'having a job' isn't something that is solely under the control of those seeking work,,

its a decision for employers and they dont hire everyone who applies,,,,

Men with criminal records account for about 34 percent of all nonworking men ages 25 to 54, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation.

During the curfew all street level drug dealing got pushed indoors. Once the curfew was lifted, dealers found out someone else was trying to take their corner and so you have a lot of shootings to re-establish territory.

You also likely have some 'payback' for arsons/looting done as a perceived 'diss' or disrespectful move between gangs. While publicly the gangs claimed to have invoked a peace treaty, it's not something gangs are normally proactive about entering into. They usually happen only after a high profile shooting or gang melee.

Finally, there has been a publicly acknowledged work slowdown by cops. They are not stopping & frisking, talking to old ladies who know what's happening at 2:00 am on the block, and only answering 911 calls. So, the thugs have a hall pass for now to shoot and loot.

Personally, I say you evacuate the women and children and drone strike the known gang buildings/businesses.

or replace the police with unemployed who are interested in doing their jobs..

oh boo hoo, we cant shoot and killed unarmed people anymore so we just wont do anything,,,,,just as pathetic as wanting 15 dollars an hour to flip a burger,,,,

Since when are the unemployed interested in jobs? How long would that last? I mean, it's an actual JOB.....

um,.. since it takes MONEY to eat and live,, unemployed have been interested in jobs,,,,

what kind of question is that?

My question IS....Why aren't they working if they are so interested in jobs? Why are they living off of handouts from the government? Why? Explain that...because it IS a problem.

because 'working' isnt like going out and pulling a leaf off of the tree
it is a PROCESS to become employed,,and until the time of such employment,, one is considered

unemployed

since there are hundreds of apps to any given job, that leaves HUNDREDS that have to continue looking ,, ie being 'unemployed' until an EMPLOYER finds them a BEST fit for the opening

There are also disqualifiers. Felony convictions... Drug use.. lack of basic reading and math skills..

Let us not pretend that the reason people can't get jobs is because there are 100 applications for every one.

I just looked at Indeed and there are 34,700 jobs within 25 miles of Baltimore listed.. I would think that anyone who really really wanted to work could find something if they met the basic hiring standards..

also, if they don't have any ID, they won't be able to get a job either...they can vote, but not get a job...

I guess they haven't given jobs the special status of being considered a 'right'..... it isn't as important as other things like gay marriage and free healthcare..

It's interesting what a Muslim clergy in Lucknow, India said to the community. Translation:

QUOTE:

If a Muslim places a shawl over the tomb of his ancients - he is a Sunni
If a Muslim places flowers over a tomb - he is a Shia
But if there is a Muslim who would bring these two to quarrel over this difference - he is the Wahhabi

For a couple of years, in a project, I was employed by a contractor who had his family roots in Bombay, belongs to the Shia sect and now lives in London. Same project, field engineers from Huta Engineering, run by the Bin Laden Group were very cooperative. I think it is when we work and build something together that one goes beyond the cultural differences. Quite different from a soldier's perspective.

QUOTE:

ISIS is Wahhabis

????
my friend, I could've understood if you had stated that Osama's source for recruit to his Taliban came from the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.
Wiki throws some light on Wahhabism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

To state that members from the now fragmented Taliban went on to form the ISIS sounds fantastic. From what I understood, the ISIS recruiting base was in Iraq / Iran. To me it sounds like the thief who went to the police station and filed in the first information report stating that he was the victim of a robbery.

Allow me to share an experience: my first time in the Middle East.
It was in Qatar & the holy period of Ramadan. I had missed the company bus to site. So I walked 2 kms to the main road, bare headed, wearing a tie, carrying my laptop, drawings what not. On reaching the road, I saw a mosque and a few people gathered.
Actually, I just saw the water faucet outside the mosque, went over & drank in like an elephant.

People had gone silent, I remember that; a few may have given strange looks, didn't notice at all. It was after I got inside a passing cab & the driver offered me a water bottle & I told him that I had just filled in at the Mosque that I came to know the narrow escape.

The Law says any man caught drinking water during the daytime hours of Ramdan will be put in prison & released after the period of Ramdan.

Then I recalled, that there was a police station just beside the Mosque.

What is my point in rambling on like this?
Simple: In today's complexity, the enemy is not who it seems; not really the Mullah's who are against women acquiring any level of freedom. The Mullah's voice will start fading as and when the larger world takes a more united approach. A beginning could be made if Putin & the next US President agreed to work jointly. After all, Kissinger did get Mao & Nixon to talk and then what happened?

May be our Muslim members can give a better insight into all this?

This makes almost ZERO sense.

ISIS are Wahhabis.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a Wahhabi and he is from Iraq

His predecessor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was a Wahhabi and he was from Iraq.

Mullah Omar.. the leader of the Taliban is a Wahhabi. He taught at a Madrassa in Pakistan before he became the Taliban's leader.

All of the ISIS literature and teachings come from Sheikh Abdelaziz bin Baz and Juhayman al-Otaybi. DIE HARD WAHHABIS.

Sunnis are NOT Wahhabis.

ISIS does not consider the rulers of Saudi Arabia to be TRUE Wahhabis.

I can't make this any more clear to you.

Wahhabism is very very very different than your average Sunni.

ISIS are chopping off heads in Anbar Province and the heads they are chopping off are SUNNI!!!!!!!!!!

They are all psychos still living in the stone age. They all need to be dealt with....soon.

It is very unlikely that they will be any time soon. The world pretends to be up in arms over ISIS all the while they know that they are funded by elements of the hardcore islamist wing of the Saudi monarchy.

ISIS serves a two fold purpose... A battle tested adversary to Hezbollah and a threat to the reformists within Saudi society.

The recent shia mosque bombings by alleged ISIS sympathizers are just a warning to the reform minded that if they speak too loud they will be dealt with..